Social Impact Investing Discussion Paper Submission

Transcription

1 Social Impact Investing Discussion Paper Submission 24 February 2017

2 Associate Professor Danielle Logue Dr Gillian McAllister Centre for Business & Social Innovation UTS Business School University of Technology Sydney 24 February 2017 Housing Unit Manager Social Policy Division The Treasury Langton Crescent Parkes ACT 2600 Dear Sir/Madam Re: Social Impact Investing Discussion Paper Please find enclosed our response to the aforementioned Discussion Paper, specifically on questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 11 and 29. These comments are based on original research and commentary on the building of impact investing markets and social entrepreneurship globally (as cited by the World Economic Forum fellowship of the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, University of Oxford, and current position as chief investigators of DFAT s Social Entrepreneurship and Impact Initiative (SEIII). Under SEIII we draw upon insights from 87 interviews and analysis of more than 90 research papers and secondary reports, with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region. This report will be available publicly in March Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Discussion Paper and contribute to the national discussion on building a robust, productive and equitable impact investing market in Australia to support social innovation. Associate Professor Danielle Logue & Dr Gillian McAllister Centre for Business & Social Innovation, UTS Business School ii

3 Table of Contents SUMMARY OF INSIGHTS... 1 SUBMISSION ON QUESTION SUBMISSION ON QUESTION SUBMISSION ON QUESTION 4 AND QUESTION SUBMISSION ON QUESTION SUBMISSION ON QUESTION SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION... 1 CONTACT INFORMATION... 1 iii

4 Summary of insights Based on our current research, we share the following insights: 1. The existing impact investing market lacks infrastructure. Platforms such as social stock exchanges lay the ground work for a market by providing coordination, education and connection of a marketplace (although limited liquidity at this nascent stage) (Question 1, Question 2) 2. A robust impact investing market needs diversity in types of investors, beyond PAFs. It is important to make impact investing available to more types of investors and individuals, building a pipeline of financing and investment options (e.g. linking to crowd-sourced equity platforms) (Question 2) 3. Existing Australian corporate law enables the creation of Pty Ltd Social Benefit Businesses. The creation of a similar form to UK Community Interest Companies (CICs) may also assist in providing a greater diversity of investment opportunities and legitimacy to the broader impact investing/social enterprise market. (Question 2, Question 29) 4. The work of intermediaries in building the impact investing market needs to be supported with grants; in this early stage of market development, the brokering of large-scale impact investment deals can take between 6-24 months. (Question 4, Question 6) 5. The Australian market would benefit from tax incentives similar to the UK s Social Investment Tax Relief, where investors can claim up to 30% of deal costs as a tax deduction. (Question 4, Question 6) 6. Funding for education and capacity building of social enterprises is also needed. (Question 4, Question 6) 7. We support the four principles outlined for impact investing and suggest some extensions. (Question 11) 1

5 Submission on Question 1 Question 1: What do you see as the main barriers to growth of the social impact investing market in Australia? How to these barriers differ from the perspective of investors, service providers and intermediaries? Based on original research and recent work conducted for the SEIII, we have summarised our findings as to the barriers in the table below. Stakeholder ( Market Participant ) Investors (institutional) Investors (retail) Intermediaries Service providers (social enterprises for-profit) Service providers (DGR, nonprofit) Barriers Finding impact investment deals Finding impact investment deals of sufficient scale (for institutional investors) No real transparency of previous deals, so lack of data to inform expectations Lack of convergence on measurement of impact Only accredited investors can participate at present No investor incentives or support are available Securing revenue stream for own business model Length of time to educate investors Length of time to develop enterprises Cost and length of time involved in designing and establishing deals Burdensome requirements for impact measurement Lack of access to smaller scale finance: o Impact investors often offer non-competitive interest rates compared to mainstream commercial finance o There are barriers to equity investment for both institutional and retail investors, as noted above Restricted by constitution as to methods of financing Traditional operating model is to accept grants and donations: impact investing can be too complicated for some of these organisations 2

6 Submission on Question 2 Question 2. What do you see as the future for impact investing in Australia: for example, can you foresee the development of new structures for impact investing? The impact investing market in Australia is at a nascent stage of development. It currently lacks market infrastructure, such as platforms that connect supply and demand (for example, social stock exchanges), transparency around brokers and intermediaries, and clarity on impact measurement options. Our current research 1 on platforms such as social stock exchanges indicates that, while they may not provide liquidity in the market, they do provide essential infrastructure, coordinate, convene, educate and establish expectations and norms (for enterprises and investors) around required impact, returns, and deal structures. There is opportunity for Government to participate as an investor, through blended finance deals (e.g. being a first loss investor), in continuing to engage in products such as social impact bonds (and importantly making those deals and learnings available to the wider market), and also in educating and building quality into the market (e.g. smaller funds and grants to support intermediaries to broker and test deals). Diversity of investors is also needed beyond PAFs in order to provide an investment pipeline for enterprises. We suggest that new categories of investors (e.g. sophisticated investor as in the UK crowd funding market, or opportunities provided to individuals under the USA JOBS Act to invest up to $2,000 per year) are necessary for deal flow. Submission on Question 4 and Question 6 Question 4. What do you see as the role of the Australian Government in developing the social impact investing market? Question 6. Are there areas where funding through a social investment framework may generate more effective and efficient policy outcomes than direct grant funding? In this section, we respond to two issues: What is the role of Government in developing the social impact investing market (Question 4)?; and Are there ways that Government can support the development of a social impact investing market other than through direct grant funding (Question 6)? It is our view that the Australian Government has a critical role to play in creating an enabling environment for private sector-led social impact investing as well as being a participant in the market. This enabling role is acknowledged in the Introduction to the Discussion Paper and merits detailed consideration. Based on our research, there are a number of potential areas for action. 1 See for example, and 3

7 1. Funding of intermediaries to develop deals Funding of intermediaries and pools of funding to trial deals: necessary for market development are the brokers and intermediaries to develop deals. Given that impact investing deals (such as social impact bonds) can take 6-24 months to develop, funding support (in terms of grants) would assist here. Currently intermediaries struggle to develop sustainable business models to support this work, hindering deal flow. For example, Convergence, a large sized wholesale fund based in Canada is an investor that also provides a small fund to support intermediaries to develop and test deals. Convergence will award a minimum of CAD 10M in design grants over the next five years, and this initial funding is provided by the Government of Canada. 2 This support for intermediaries is currently missing in the Australian market. 2. Tax incentives for social investment The Australian market would benefit from tax incentives such as the UK s Social Investment Tax Relief, where investors can claim up to 30% of deal costs as a tax deduction 3. Any efforts to reduce the cost of doing deals for investors, but also other stakeholders we believe would support market development. In seeking to mainstream impact investing, consistency with investment support in the start-up sector 4 would also be welcome. 3. Education and capacity building Our research on other national markets demonstrates the necessity of grant funding, especially for education and capacity building of enterprises in the early stage of market development. This could take the form of: Funding for the establishment of incubator and accelerator programs tailored to social enterprises; Funding for social enterprises to purchase professional business advisory services; 5 (If crowd-sourced equity funding is enabled), grant funding to intermediaries or platforms to educate social entrepreneurs in how to use this medium and run effective campaigns. Our research also shows that Government can play an effective role as a participant in the impact investing market and crowd in private funding. In a new market such as this, Government participation in deals can attract private capital by signaling credibility. Government can also use blended finance tools to reduce the perceived risk of investing in unfamiliar business models. Deploying grants, subordinated debt and guarantees to create a layer of first-loss capital can be effective to catalyse private investment in deals The NAB Impact Investment Readiness Fund is an example of this type of support. The fund offers grants up to $100,000 for not-for-profit organisations and social enterprises to purchase specialised capacity building support from advisory, financial, intermediary and legal service providers. See: 4

8 Submission on Question 11 Question 11. We are seeking your feedback on the four proposed principles of social impact investing. We support the four principles outlined for impact investing, as pertaining to the Government. Based on our research, we highlight the following extensions: Principle 2: Robust outcomes-based measurement and evaluation: there is currently no convergence around impact measurement. While the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) is building a global set of basic standards and options for impact measurement, we suggest flexibility in approach in this early stage of the market. We also suggest the Government needs to play a stronger role in providing data from multiple agencies in the case of development of SIBs, and start directing relevant agencies to focus on possible social outcome measures to develop baseline data. Principle 3: Fair sharing of risk and return: we only caution here as to the Government funding due diligence on investment deals that are then exclusively offered to some investors and not made more widely available to the investment market. For example, where one firm is contracted to identify impact investment opportunities (social enterprises) and then presents these opportunities exclusively to associated investment funds, rather than the broader market. While it is helpful and necessary that educators and accelerators for social enterprises demonstrate connections to the investment market, these investment opportunities should not be exclusive. We believe this is a conflict of interest and should be avoided when attempting to catalyse a market. Principle 4: A deliverable and relevant social outcome: there is opportunity here for the Government to more readily share rates of returns, agreements and structures of deals, to educate the market and manage expectations. Submission on Question 29 Question 29. Would making a model constitution for a social enterprise assist in reducing the costs for individuals intending to establish a new entity? What other standard products or other industryled solutions would assist in reducing the costs for individuals intending to establish a social enterprise. We are unconvinced that a new corporate structure is required for social enterprises. A model based on the US Public Benefit Corporation is possible to craft under existing Australian Corporations law, as evidenced by social enterprise Chuffed 6, a successful Australian crowd funding platform that has constituted itself as a Social Benefit Company 7 in January 2016, and has taken on investment from leading technology venture capitalists Blackbird Ventures 8 and Telstra Foundation, amongst others

9 Chuffed is incorporated as a Pty Ltd and its constitution as a Social Benefit Company is based on 3 tenets 9 : 1. A clear statement of a specific public benefit that the organization is set up to deliver (the Purpose ) which is put in the constitution 2. Directors of the Social Benefit Company are permitted and required to deliver the Purpose and to consider the wider impacts of their decisions as part of their duties as a Director of that Company ( Directors Duties ) this is also put in the Constitution 3. A requirement that changing the Purpose or Directors Duties requires a 100% shareholder vote ( Mission Lock ). This is also put in the Shareholder s Agreement. For social enterprises focused on localized service delivery, an organizational model similar to the UK s CIC s (Community Interest Company) could be considered. This was introduced over 10 years ago and has been taken up by over 11,000 organizations. This often allows charities to adopt a model to move into a social enterprise (for-profit) form more readily. It would also give Australia a variety of organizational forms available to deliver social impact. Reports 10 from the UK indicate this form is mainly being taken up by smaller, local enterprises and also large spin-outs from the public sector (e.g. NHS). CIC status offers the simplicity of company structure without the extra level of governance of a charity. It would also be a symbolic move in further legitimating the social enterprise space in Australia

10 Summary of submission Stakeholder ( Market Participant ) Current barriers Observations and suggested solutions Investors (institutional) Finding impact investment deals Finding impact investment deals of sufficient scale (for institutional investors) No real transparency of previous deals, so lack of data to inform expectations Lack of convergence on measurement of impact An impact investment platform would contribute to resolving many of these issues, given the nascent stage of this market. A platform could operate in one of two ways: Through a simple membership model, the platform could connect supply and demand by listing investment opportunities; or The platform could operate as a clearinghouse or private placement platform for qualified investors. The platform would also perform the function of an information exchange, improving transparency of deals and building knowledge within the market. The platform would be a key actor in building market infrastructure, including developing standards for impact measurement. A set of standard measures would provide efficiencies for enterprises and greater assurance for investors. Investors (retail) Limited opportunities for non-accredited investors to participate at present No investor incentives or support are available The potential pool of investors for social enterprises needs to be broadened. This could be achieved by: Opening up private equity funding to new categories of investors with appropriate protections (e.g. 1

11 Stakeholder ( Market Participant ) Current barriers Observations and suggested solutions Intermediaries Securing revenue stream for own business model Length of time to educate investors Length of time to develop enterprise Cost and length of time involved in designing and establishing deals sophisticated investors in the UK crowd funding market, or the USA JOBS Act provisions for limited retail investment through crowd-sourced funding); Providing tax incentives, similar to the Social Investment Tax Relief mechanism in the UK. Under the SITR, individuals are allowed a 30% tax relief from the cost of their investment, in addition to the ability to defer their capital gains tax, if such investment is made in a social enterprise. In this early stage of the impact investing market, intermediaries play a vital role in connecting investors with businesses seeking capital. However, they struggle to secure a revenue stream for their own business models given that: In this new area of work, there is significant cost and time involved in designing and establishing deals There is a need to educate investors and create interest in, and an appetite for, impact investing; and Business training and capacity building work is often required to create investable social enterprises. As part of its enabling role, Government should provide grants to support brokers to design and test deals. Government could also support incubation and acceleration programs tailored to social enterprises to build the pipeline 2

12 Stakeholder ( Market Participant ) Current barriers Observations and suggested solutions of investable businesses. Service providers (social enterprises for-profit) Burdensome requirements for impact measurement Lack of access to smaller scale finance: o Impact investors often offer non-competitive interest rates compared to mainstream commercial finance o There are barriers to equity investment for both institutional and retail investors, as noted above As noted above, the establishment of standards around impact measurement would create efficiencies for social enterprises. It would be important, however, that the standards not be overly complex and that they do not impose prohibitive costs on social enterprises. Crowd-sourced equity financing presents an opportunity for social enterprises. Crowd funding for social and community projects has a successful track record (eg. StartSomeGood; Chuffed; Kiva). Social enterprises should be allowed to raise equity funding through a crowd sourcing portal from a broad base of retail investors. This is likely to require changes to the current regulatory framework around equity fund raising by companies if it is to benefit the majority of social enterprises. Research has shown that crowd sourcing campaigns rely on good business and marketing skills to be successful. Crowdsourcing platforms often offer guidance and coaching to businesses to run their campaigns. Government could support this work with specific grants aimed at building the marketing and crowd-funding campaign skills of social enterprises. Service providers (DGR, non- Restricted by constitution as to methods of financing Traditional operating model is to accept grants and Providing alternative corporate models could assist not-forprofit social enterprises to raise funds through impact 3

13 Stakeholder ( Market Participant ) Current barriers Observations and suggested solutions profit) donations: impact investing can be too complicated for some of these organisations investing. The creation of a similar form to UK Community Interest Companies (CICs) could open up opportunities for charities and smaller not-for-profit social enterprises. Some level of skills-building would be required to assist notfor-profit social enterprises to become investor ready. Government may be able to assist by supporting education programs tailored to this sector. 4

14 Contact information For further information, please contact Associate Professor Danielle Logue Centre for Business and Social Innovation Dr Gillian McAllister Centre for Business and Social Innovation Senior Researcher 1